I am getting confused about the first paragraph from this article.
In the discourse on international relations, we routinely differentiate between various categories of states and label them according to certain criteria that we consider relevant for our understanding of the dynamics of international politics. Sometimes these criteria are purely factual, but mostly they have an evaluative, even moralizing, overtone. For example, the denotation of a state as a coastal state, inland state, nuclear state, or nuclear-power state is both factual and informative. Arguably, labels like "Great Power", "small state", or "developing state" combine factual with evaluative elements. But most state labels have a predominantly evaluative character. Labels such as "failed or failing state", "semisovereign state", "democratic state", "rogue state", or "outlaw state" are largely contested and accepted only by those who share the evaluative assumptions which form the basis of such a marker.
I can understand the first sentence, but I cannot comprehend what the italic part is trying to convey. First it says most state labels have an evaluative character, but then it says those evaluative labels are accepted only by certain people, which in my understanding, it means those evaluative labels are not commonly accepted. This makes the paragraph seems contradictory to me.
Is my understanding of only wrong, or there is something else I am missing?